StormX
Banned
NEW ORLEANS — Citing “grotesque prosecutorial misconduct” on the part of federal lawyers here and in Washington, a judge on Tuesday threw out the 2011 convictions of five former police officers who had been found guilty in a momentous civil rights case of killing two citizens and engaging in an extensive cover-up in the days after Hurricane Katrina.
In a heated 129-page decision, Judge Kurt D. Englehardt of Federal District Court here declared that federal prosecutors had created a “prejudicial, poisonous atmosphere” in making anonymous online comments before and during the trial at nola.com, the Web site of The Times-Picayune, and ordered a new trial for all five officers.
That someone in the United States attorney’s office had been anonymously commenting on nola.com was first revealed in the spring of 2012 by lawyers representing the target of a high-profile corruption investigation. The revelations were the talk of New Orleans as lawyers identified a longtime assistant United States attorney, Sal Perricone, as a prolific and rather acerbic commenter under several handles. The targets of his commentary were varied and included the police department, which he called “corrupt,” “ineffectual” and “a joke.”
Several months later, Jan Mann, the office’s second-highest-ranking prosecutor, was also revealed to have been commenting anonymously. In the wake of this disclosure, Jim Letten, at the time the longest-serving United States attorney in the country, stepped down.
Neither Mr. Perricone nor Ms. Mann was a part of the federal trial prosecution team. But the defendants, citing Mr. Perricone’s extensive online comments about the case, had already requested a new trial.
After Mr. Letten’s resignation, the Justice Department announced that John A. Horn, a federal prosecutor from Georgia, would be investigating the office for misconduct relating to the commenting scandal. The judge describes his dissatisfaction with Mr. Horn’s findings, four times sending questions back that he wanted Mr. Horn to answer. It was over the course of this back and forth that Mr. Horn reported that Karla Dobinski, who since 1985 has been a trial lawyer in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, had commented several times on nola.com under the name “Dipsos.”
Ms. Dobinski had an important role leading up to trial, as the lawyer in charge of the so-called “taint team,” which among other things ensured that testimony given by police officers under immunity was not later used against them (the failure to do so is what fatally compromised the case in state court).
Ms. Dobinski was in Washington during the trial and did not appear to have made the sort of provocative online remarks made by Mr. Perricone or Ms. Mann. But in the last week of trial, she urged along certain nola.com commenters who were following the trial and were strongly in favor of the prosecution. Judge Englehardt suggested that the discovery of Ms. Dobinski’s commentary was “the straw that broke the camel’s back.”
In a statement, a Justice Department spokeswoman expressed disappointment with the ruling, saying that the department was reviewing the decision and considering the options.
“It’s almost unbelievable,” said Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University, adding that the risks of social media are a frequent discussion topic among lawyers. “This is the most dramatic danger sign that we’ve had come along.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/u...er-hurricane-katrina.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
In a heated 129-page decision, Judge Kurt D. Englehardt of Federal District Court here declared that federal prosecutors had created a “prejudicial, poisonous atmosphere” in making anonymous online comments before and during the trial at nola.com, the Web site of The Times-Picayune, and ordered a new trial for all five officers.
That someone in the United States attorney’s office had been anonymously commenting on nola.com was first revealed in the spring of 2012 by lawyers representing the target of a high-profile corruption investigation. The revelations were the talk of New Orleans as lawyers identified a longtime assistant United States attorney, Sal Perricone, as a prolific and rather acerbic commenter under several handles. The targets of his commentary were varied and included the police department, which he called “corrupt,” “ineffectual” and “a joke.”
Several months later, Jan Mann, the office’s second-highest-ranking prosecutor, was also revealed to have been commenting anonymously. In the wake of this disclosure, Jim Letten, at the time the longest-serving United States attorney in the country, stepped down.
Neither Mr. Perricone nor Ms. Mann was a part of the federal trial prosecution team. But the defendants, citing Mr. Perricone’s extensive online comments about the case, had already requested a new trial.
After Mr. Letten’s resignation, the Justice Department announced that John A. Horn, a federal prosecutor from Georgia, would be investigating the office for misconduct relating to the commenting scandal. The judge describes his dissatisfaction with Mr. Horn’s findings, four times sending questions back that he wanted Mr. Horn to answer. It was over the course of this back and forth that Mr. Horn reported that Karla Dobinski, who since 1985 has been a trial lawyer in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, had commented several times on nola.com under the name “Dipsos.”
Ms. Dobinski had an important role leading up to trial, as the lawyer in charge of the so-called “taint team,” which among other things ensured that testimony given by police officers under immunity was not later used against them (the failure to do so is what fatally compromised the case in state court).
Ms. Dobinski was in Washington during the trial and did not appear to have made the sort of provocative online remarks made by Mr. Perricone or Ms. Mann. But in the last week of trial, she urged along certain nola.com commenters who were following the trial and were strongly in favor of the prosecution. Judge Englehardt suggested that the discovery of Ms. Dobinski’s commentary was “the straw that broke the camel’s back.”
In a statement, a Justice Department spokeswoman expressed disappointment with the ruling, saying that the department was reviewing the decision and considering the options.
“It’s almost unbelievable,” said Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University, adding that the risks of social media are a frequent discussion topic among lawyers. “This is the most dramatic danger sign that we’ve had come along.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/u...er-hurricane-katrina.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0